Kerry wins again

[Dutch]

Dan,

Don't worry about it. I take offense to almost everything around here, so don't take it personally.

[Buccaneer]

Sorry to be late in responding but I think you would understand. Just a few reactions to some of the posts here:

With Bush vs Kerry likely, I am predicting either a repeat of the Bush vs Dukakis election of 1988 or if something dramatic happens, closer to Bush vs Gore.

-----

Someone said that Kerry will have to (or will) run centrist. I won't understand why every single voter would not see through that charade. It is arguable that he had one of the most liberal voting record in the Senate. So running as a centrist, I see two conclusions:

1. What he voted on (or stood for) the past 20 years was an error because he really is a centrist. That's being a liar; or

2. He will stand on his voting record but fake being a centrist. That's being a fraud and a hypocrit.

Yes I know all candidates run centrist with some conservative/liberal flavorings. But in the case of Bush Jr., I would strongly argue that his results where more of a liberal Republican (with his record budget proposals and bigger govt). There were some conservative flavorings so I don't think you can claim strongly that he ran one way and presided another way. Clinton ended up like Bush Jr., imo (being all over the place) with Reagan and Carter being the only ones in recent memory presiding the way he campaigned.

-----

Too many people, imo, are pointing to Dean's downfall on his scream speech. I strongly disagree. At the first of the year, it was widespread belief among Democrats that he would self-destruct - it just became a matter of when, not if. Two weeks before Iowa, Dean was slipping badly and had already lost Iowa by then. It (scream speech) may have cost him some pct points in NH but I don't think it would have made that much of a difference by then.

-----

I find it very amusing to the critical remark of Kerry going up against a "political machine". One, you have an incumbant that does not have spend any money for the primaries. Don't you remember the 1996 election at all????? Second, the political machines (both for Rep and Dem) have always been there. It changes from election to election depending upon incumbancy and popularity but the Dems have a huge machine in some areas that the GOP cannot begin to match (think Big Labor, Big Media, Big Greens, etc.), and vice-versa (you know the usual list). That is why I am thinking that in many states, the election has already been decided (i.e., nothing will change the expected outcome).

-----

I didn't see anyone mention the FY 2005 Federal Budget. There were 20+ general categories. Did anyone pay attention to the pct increase/decrease???? There are those here (like NoMyths) that wants to make something called "fiscal responsibility" as an anti-Bush campaign theme. Okay, I would go along with that. Will you and others join me in declaring instead of a handful of categories going down in pct points, that all of them should (as a way of avoiding any drastic cuts in any one area)? Why propose a budget of $2.4t instead of $1.85t if you are so concerned with the budget deficit??? But I suspect that no way you (or Kerry or anyone else) would do that (regardless if the actual approval of such numbers falls with Congress instead of the president). I firmly believe that one should always submit a budget without a deficit by cutting spending and not raising any more taxes. But no one has the guts to do so and therefore, I don't want to hear anything about "fiscal responsibility" in this year's campaign.

-----

Since I am planning to vote Libertarian (it would be impossible for Kerry to win Colorado), I really won't have much personal emotional invested. I view this year's election as a great strategy game and you know I love strategy games.

[NoMyths]

Kerry/Edwards '04 = Clinton/Gore '92.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Kerry/Edwards '04 = Clinton/Gore '92.

I strongly disagree. Take a look at this fantastic map again:



Do you see any of the red counties going to Kerry/Edwards? I don't think so.

[NoMyths]

Boy, I guess it's a good thing they don't go on majority of counties won for the election then. Not to mention the fact that if that map is referring to the last election, Gore still won with those few blue blips.

[Buccaneer]

But you missed the point completely. If you believe it could be like 1992, then many of the red counties have to turn blue (esp. in the plains and the intermountain west). I just don't see that at all.

[NoMyths]

Guess we'll see. On the other hand, I don't see any green blips, which I suppose would equate to a Libertarian win.

[Easy Mac]

Given the Bush's horrid job record, and Edward's ability to campaign, I think Edwards could pull some of the South, so long as Kerry shuts the fuck up about it. Kerry can't keep saying he can ignore the South (regardless of the truth to the statement), because a good part of the South is having a hell of a time in the job market, and many of them see it as Bush's fault (whether rightly or not). He's shooting himself in the foot with that. I could see Edwards giving Bush a better run at this point because he can pull a good bit of the South, even if he has a short political record.

And on Kerry running as a centrist: Bush also ran as a centrist when he ran, and the people sure as hell didn't see through that.

[Easy Mac]

LIbertarians are really just blue counties with a fancy name.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Guess we'll see. On the other hand, I don't see any green blips, which I suppose would equate to a Libertarian win.

I think you will in the future - starting with NH. Despite all of the attention on the Dems in NH, only 19% of the registered voters in the state are Dems. The Libertarians (a party I will not join) are finally starting at the grassroots level by targeting NH specifically, which should have been their strategy all along. There is a reason for the motto, "Live Free or Die", which cannot apply to the philosophies of the Dems or GOP.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Given the Bush's horrid job record, and Edward's ability to campaign, I think Edwards could pull some of the South, so long as Kerry shuts the fuck up about it. Kerry can't keep saying he can ignore the South (regardless of the truth to the statement), because a good part of the South is having a hell of a time in the job market, and many of them see it as Bush's fault (whether rightly or not). He's shooting himself in the foot with that. I could see Edwards giving Bush a better run at this point because he can pull a good bit of the South, even if he has a short political record.

And on Kerry running as a centrist: Bush also ran as a centrist when he ran, and the people sure as hell didn't see through that.

I just don't believe it is the federal govt's role to create jobs. All it should do is to get out of the way of entrepreneurship. Things will go in cycles (witness of the PC revolution of the 1980s and the Internet/telecom revolution of the 1990s) and the South with its relative lack of educated workforce seems always lag behind in the revolutions. You cannot keep making buggy-whips if it is not profitable to do so and the govt should not force that.

The answer is not why the govt didn't force jobs elsewhere into the South (outside of Atlanta) but why is it so hard for a critical mass of companies (esp. well-paying ones) to want to move there - as oppose to the Bay Area, Puget Sound, Front Range Colorado, Las Vegas, Texas, Northern Virginia and other high growth/high paying areas.

Additionally, I think you missed my argument that Bush's record is much more of a centrist (re: liberal Republican) than it is perceived to be.

[Swaggs]

If the Florida recount would have gone in Gore's favor, would the media be alerted by the fact that Republicans do not have any hold on the Northeast or West Coast (like they are with the Democrats in the South now)?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

LIbertarians are really just blue counties with a fancy name.

I always thought the Libertarians were equated closer to Republicans than Democrats. Then again, both parties are big-spending and infringe upon civil liberties so it's not a good comparison either way.

I agree a Kerry/Edwards ticket is the Dems best hope, but I think it would be with the order reversed. A charismatic, relatively unknown Southerner running with the experienced Liberal to shore up the party base would be a great combination.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I just don't believe it is the federal govt's role to create jobs. All it should do is to get out of the way of entrepreneurship. Things will go in cycles (witness of the PC revolution of the 1980s and the Internet/telecom revolution of the 1990s) and the South with its relative lack of educated workforce seems always lag behind in the revolutions. You cannot keep making buggy-whips if it is not profitable to do so and the govt should not force that.

And the view you hold isn't the view most people hold, or else jobs would be low on people's lists of priorities while voting. However, here jobs are very important in influencing a person's vote.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Additionally, I think you missed my argument that Bush's record is much more of a centrist (re: liberal Republican) than it is perceived to be.

His actual record doesn't matter, only the perception does. The electorate in this country is woefully uninformed. Bush has spent his whole first term trying to buy off almost every portion of the electorate, and I hope he stops during the second term when he doesn't have to worry about re-election. The only place he's really made a stand is in foreign policy, which seems to define Republicans/Democrats better than any opinion. His stance there will be enough for me to vote for him over any of the Democrats still in the race, but I really dislike his Nixon-esque attempt to buy off everyone.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

And the view you hold isn't the view most people hold, or else jobs would be low on people's lists of priorities while voting. However, here jobs are very important in influencing a person's vote.

Jobs will matter enough in South Carolina for Kerry to win that state over Bush the day hell freezes over.

[Buccaneer]

dola (perhaps)

I read in the paper today that the Feds wants to authorize $383 billion for highway projects to create 2 million jobs (over 10 years, I think?). Since 1979, just Silicon Valley (San Jose metro area, CA) created over 1.2 million jobs (230,000 since 1992). The cost to federal taxpayers? Much less than $383b I suppose. Impact upon the federal budget decefit? Probably lowered it significantly instead of adding to it.

I know the value of a national infrastructure and support it but construction jobs come in waves regardless but the net effect seems to be the same - it's just a matter of how much the Feds have to step in and incur even more budget pressures than if it would do less.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

And the view you hold isn't the view most people hold, or else jobs would be low on people's lists of priorities while voting. However, here jobs are very important in influencing a person's vote.

I would far rather encourage and be on the lookout for an entrepreneur starting a small company that can grow into a large company employing 250,000 people than some politician coming down and promising something that may or may not be viable and incur fiscal irresponsibility.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

And the view you hold isn't the view most people hold, or else jobs would be low on people's lists of priorities while voting. However, here jobs are very important in influencing a person's vote.

From Charles Barkley's book, "I May Be Wrong, but I Doubt It"

Just about every every single person in my hometown is a Democrat. And they are living exactly the same way they lived when I left there 20 years ago. Their lives have not been financially improved in any substantial way in all that time. My high school, Leeds High School, is closing. And the whole area has been vacated. Their lives are not any better.
I asked my mother and grandmother about why things never got any better under politicians that ran things for so many years, and they kept voting for 'em. And they'd say, "We're Democrats." And I'd say, "Why? All these people vote this way every single election and things are still the same." What did they do in exchange for all that loyalty for all those years? I don't see any new economic opportunities in my hometown.

[Peregrine]

I read in the paper today that the Feds wants to authorize $383 billion for highway projects to create 2 million jobs (over 10 years, I think?). Since 1979, just Silicon Valley (San Jose metro area, CA) created over 1.2 million jobs (230,000 since 1992). The cost to federal taxpayers? Much less than $383b I suppose. Impact upon the federal budget decefit? Probably lowered it significantly instead of adding to it.

There's a good reason this transportation bill is bogged down in Congress and probably will be trimmed down if it passes at all. The head of the House Transportation committee who put the bill together thought it would be a good idea to raise the federal gas tax by 8 cents a gallon to fund it. Of course transportation is notorious for being laden with pork and a variety of home-state fluff projects, so it will be good to see it trimmed down. Transportation Secretary Mineta suggested a mere $247 billion for the bill.

[Peregrine]

Dola - Interesting article on CNN about the view of Kerry in the financial markets:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/29/mark...ex.htm?cnn=yes

"Members of the securities and investment industry have donated nearly $4 million to big-business friendly George W. Bush's re-election campaign, but have also donated more than $1 million to Kerry's campaign, according to the latest available data from the Center for Responsive Politics."

""On one hand, he seems more palatable to Wall Street than Dean, in that his positions on trade and taxes are more moderate," said Greg Valliere, political economist and chief strategist at Charles Schwab Washington Research Group.

"On the other hand, I think the markets weren't paying all that much attention to the Democratic race several weeks ago when it seemed like Dean would win, because in a Dean vs. Bush race, it was widely assumed on Wall Street that Bush would sweep," Valliere added. "But this changes things. Kerry's no Michael Dukakis. A Kerry-[John] Edwards ticket would be more threatening to Bush than Dean."

[ISiddiqui]

Do you see any of the red counties going to Kerry/Edwards?

Yes, especially in Florida for one. I could easily see a bunch of upper Great Lakes counties turning and some more Southern counties (because of Edwards). I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket wins this thing unless bin Laden is caught.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket wins this thing unless bin Laden is caught.

You want to lay some money down?

Assuming Kerry wins the primary, which is probable but not certain, Edwards isn't even 50/50 to be the VP. It seems like Richardson and even Gephardt are getting more mention as possible candidates by those who think they know about the Kerry campaign.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

From Charles Barkley's book, "I May Be Wrong, but I Doubt It"

Hmm. That's what I like, sound political commentary from an athlete.

[sabotai]

Look for my upcoming book about Barkley titled "He May Be A Good Basketball Player, But I Doubt It."

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You want to lay some money down?

Assuming Kerry wins the primary, which is probable but not certain, Edwards isn't even 50/50 to be the VP. It seems like Richardson and even Gephardt are getting more mention as possible candidates by those who think they know about the Kerry campaign.

Gephardt would be suicide, Richardson would be a great move.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The whole "Bush went AWOL" thing has been found to be without merit, which is why mainstream media doesn't talk about it anymore. I myself find it funny that the party that nominated and elected Bill Clinton for two terms now is going ga-ga over a candidate with a war record.

Kerry is ranked as more liberal than Ted Kennedy by a liberal watchdog group (I'll try and provide a link after I get off the air) and has been for years. I think the reason why his poll numbers are so high right now is because the negative stories haven't hit yet.

Because Clinton didn't lie about his military non-service, and Bush may have.

Watchdog groups serve certain masters, so if you are offering those up as some kind of objective analysis to make a point, it has little weight if any.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But you missed the point completely. If you believe it could be like 1992, then many of the red counties have to turn blue (esp. in the plains and the intermountain west). I just don't see that at all.

Actually, all Kerry has to do is hold Gore's vote in the west and northeast, etc. and win one south state with a sufficient number of votes to win the electoral college and the presidency. It's not that difficult in terms of doing the math. All that is needed is a southern VP who can do better than Gore did in the south.

The problem with your map is a lot of the red is in states with low electoral votes.

Edit: however, if you're talking strictly about it being the same result in terms of electoral votes as Clinton/Gore in 1992, I think you're right that that will not happen.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

[quote=Buccaneer]I just don't believe it is the federal govt's role to create jobs.QUOTE]

Actually, that is precisely what it is supposed to do by creating the right economic climate.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Hmm. That's what I like, sound political commentary from an athlete.

As opposed to sound political commentary from a poster to an internet message board?

[Vegas Vic]

At first glance, that Red/Blue map looks overwhelming, but a closer examination reveals a not so lopsided edge.

First, a LOT of the red land mass is area that is uninhabited, or very sparsely populated. I'm talking about areas like Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Tetons, the Mojave Desert, the Nevada Test Site, the Great Basin, the Badlands, the Great Plains, the Appalachain Mountains, the Ozarks, the
Everglades, and various other land masses with about 1 to 20 residents per square mile.

The blue splotches, while unimpressive visually, are where MOST of the people actually live. That's why Gore got half a million more votes than Bush in 2000.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As opposed to sound political commentary from a poster to an internet message board?

Are you trying to say you don't hold us in any higher regard than Charles Barkley? Ouch!

[QuikSand]

The much-ballyhooed red/blue map is a nice picture... but fortunately we don't vote by the acre in this country.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Do you see any of the red counties going to Kerry/Edwards? I don't think so.

Do you assert that seeing counties flip from red to blue is a prerequisite for a Democrat victory in 2004? (Remember, we vote as individuals... or more accurately as states... but not as counties)

[cincyreds]

He isn't getting my vote!

[The Afoci]

I think it is amazing that the Democrats can only get a little better than 50% in the polls well they are running ads exclusively. At least where I live, there are many, many Democrat ads, and I have yet to see a Bush ad. When he starts spending his money, I think the polls will turn back in his favor quite a bit. I mean, put one ad with the pic of Saddam and one about how in less than a year, we have essentially ended the war in Iraq.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

...in less than a year, we have essentially ended the war in Iraq.

Interesting way of capsulizing the issue. I'm sure some would summarize it another way.

I largely agree with your argument, though.

[The Afoci]

It is all about the two man race. You can portray a second place finish as just that and claim the guy who finished first as finishing second from last. With all the negativity towards Bush, I don't see how his numbers couldn't go up when he finally gets the positive message about him out there.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Edit: however, if you're talking strictly about it being the same result in terms of electoral votes as Clinton/Gore in 1992, I think you're right that that will not happen.

Yes, that was exactly what I was responding to. As I said earlier, it very well could be another repeat of Bush vs Gore. But it will not be Clinton/Bush because many of the counties (and thus, the states) in the Plains and Intermountain West will not be going to Kerry (which did go for Clinton in 92). That was the point, not the number of red/blue counties, not popular votes or any other misinterpreted comments.

[Buccaneer]

Going back to jobs, my favorite survey (and one I think is very meaningful) is the Business Climate Survey. This more than anything shows the importance of how a good business climate can attract real sustainable jobs (as oppose to federal govt pork jobs). From Forbes, here's the introduction for the 2003 results

To reflect the changing times, we changed the way we compile our ranking of Best Places For Business And Careers, turning to analysts at Economy.com, the West Chester, Pa.-based economic and financial research firm. In this, our fifth annual survey, we still kept a careful eye on income and job growth. But we also gave special attention to the cost-of-doing-business, which includes the prices of labor, energy, taxes and office space [my emphasis]. We looked closely at the qualifications of the available pool of labor. For the first time our rankings also characterized the attractiveness of a region by figuring in crime rates, housing costs and net migration.

If you are interested in the results by metro area, go here.

Many of the metro areas of the Southeast are high on the list, a definite improvement when similar rankings were published in the 1980s and 1990s. This is what needs to be encouraged by local officials, State politicians and federal policy makers - creating a good business climate to attract entrepreneurs and companies, thus creating higher paying jobs. In many cases, I would argue, it involves the State and Feds getting out of the way (e.g., reducing taxes, reducing regulations) and encouraging shifts away from union-dependent, increasingly obsolete or outdated companies (take a look at the metro areas on the bottom of the list).

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

I think it is amazing that the Democrats can only get a little better than 50% in the polls well they are running ads exclusively. At least where I live, there are many, many Democrat ads, and I have yet to see a Bush ad. When he starts spending his money, I think the polls will turn back in his favor quite a bit. I mean, put one ad with the pic of Saddam and one about how in less than a year, we have essentially ended the war in Iraq.

You will see those numbers change once we know who the nominee is, and more importantly who the running mate will be. I don't pretend to know in which direction, but right now, all polls are dealing with hypothetical Democratic candidates and a player to be named later as VP.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Whoever gets the nomination is a sacrificial lamb.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Whoever gets the nomination is a sacrificial lamb.

If that's the case then for just pure comical value please let it be Dean...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

If that's the case then for just pure comical value please let it be Dean...

I agree.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

You will see those numbers change once we know who the nominee is, and more importantly who the running mate will be. I don't pretend to know in which direction, but right now, all polls are dealing with hypothetical Democratic candidates and a player to be named later as VP.

And all the polls are dealing with only the democratic message out there. I feel that once Bush starts running his ads, things will come back his way. Especially since he is only at 50/50 or so when he isn't saying anything...

[BishopMVP]

If we're going for pure comical value, why not Kucinch or Sharpton?

I kind of wanted Dean to be the nominee because then the hardcore anti-war and anti-Bush portion of the Democratic Party would get decisively defeated.

Either way, I just want to avoid Hillary in '08. Or '12 or any other year. Although I really don't think she would have a chance (right now she has the highest unfavorable rating of any politician in the US, even Al Sharpton) it seems like we're headed for her running at some point.

[RebelMan]

I think regardless of whether Kerry picks Edwards or not the be his Vice Presidential Running mate, I dont think he'll sway those people down south. although winning Florida would alleviate some of the loss of the southern states on election night.

If Kerry wins the nomination which certainly looks solidified at this point, he could pick Edwards, Edwards will be able to provide and possibly sway some southern votes to Kerry's side. However, if he were to pick General Wesley Clark (only instance, where a former Lieutenant would be the superior of a retired General, which would be downright wrong), Clark's campaign has great fund-raising skills and that could prove advantageous for the both of them. We could even say someone that's not running for the nomination could be the running mate, however right now, it is still up in the air.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

However, if he were to pick General Wesley Clark (only instance, where a former Lieutenant would be the superior of a retired General, which would be downright wrong),

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't have any problem with this. In addition to the fact that he's now a civilian, by most accounts, Clark was a pompous, arrogant and condescending general who was disliked by most of his men and possibly was relieved of his command because he almost started a war with the Russians. It sounds like a dose of humility could do him good.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Hmm. That's what I like, sound political commentary from an athlete.

I figured his words wouldn't get any respect because he was an athlete, the message was pretty good, however. Blacks should vote like everybody else. I'm sure the Democrats are hoping for some votes to swing back from Bush to them this time around. Why shouldn't blacks do the same thing. Then they get both parties to fight over their votes as opposed to neither.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Blacks should vote like everybody else. I'm sure the Democrats are hoping for some votes to swing back from Bush to them this time around. Why shouldn't blacks do the same thing. Then they get both parties to fight over their votes as opposed to neither.

What are you talking about?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I figured his words wouldn't get any respect because he was an athlete, the message was pretty good, however. Blacks should vote like everybody else. I'm sure the Democrats are hoping for some votes to swing back from Bush to them this time around. Why shouldn't blacks do the same thing. Then they get both parties to fight over their votes as opposed to neither.

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, Chuckles lost any right to be taken seriously on societal matters when he proudly said "I am not a role model." Whatever, Chuck.

As for your comments on black voters, I really don't see a whole lot to disagree with, though Dubya's probably done less to court the vote of minorities in this country than some of his Republican Presidential (or Presidential wannabe) predecessors. It would be a dangerous mistake for either party to assume that a particular subgroup (whether it be minority, special interest, whatever, is in their corner because of past history.